Those who are harping on the shower issue have lost track of the pervasive reality that we can't know and can't police what is in another person's mind — and that people frequently think sexual thoughts. It's utterly routine to encounter people who are thinking about having sex with you. Sometimes these are people you would regard as acceptable sexual partners and sometimes they're not. So what? It's insane to let that bother you. If they don't say anything or do anything or act out in any way, it's nothing to us. If your ability to go about doing what you need to do is undermined by worrying about other people's sexual thoughts, then you are abnormal. It's ironic for the people who think homosexuals are abnormal to believe that heterosexuals are abnormal.

385 comments:

Sometimes these are people you would regard as acceptable sexual partners and sometimes they're not. So what? It's insane to let that bother you. If they don't say anything or do anything or act out in any way, it's nothing to us.

That's one of the stupidest things you've ever wrote. These people are not just walking down the fucking street, they're in the shower. How often do you find yourself in a shower with other people besides this Meade man. When was the last time you showered with other people that you might not know very well?

"That's one of the stupidest things you've ever wrote. These people are not just walking down the fucking street, they're in the shower. How often do you find yourself in a shower with other people besides this Meade man. When was the last time you showered with other people that you might not know very well?"

I just spit out my coffee LMAO.

Ann, it is NOT insane to be bothered by this - what if I were in the same room with Janet Incompetano or Valerie Jarrett?

Apparently, there's a loophole in the bill that requires Congress certify the military is ready to actually to do this, so a Republican House could still "starve the beast", much as some people want with ZeroCare until repeal is possible.

The shower thing isn't the biggest issue, but Allen's point, in the context of unit cohesion, has some validity.

donttread2010 said...@ AllenS

"That's one of the stupidest things you've ever wrote. These people are not just walking down the fucking street, they're in the shower. How often do you find yourself in a shower with other people besides this Meade man. When was the last time you showered with other people that you might not know very well?"

I just spit out my coffee LMAO.

Ann, it is NOT insane to be bothered by this - what if I were in the same room with Janet Incompetano or Valerie Jarrett?

More to the point, what if Ann were in the shower with Janet Incompetano?

It is peculiarly unimaginative to think you have gone through your whole life without being checked out by some person who would not be a desirable sex partner for you. Have these people never been in public showers in schools or sports centres, or seen a doctor, or gone camping? Do they now want public declarations from all people who harbour homosexual thoughts, and for these people to exclude themselves from such situations?

And to think that military personnel, of all people, would be bothered by a discreet lustful sideglance, after exposing themselves to life-threatening risks, is just bizarre. How fragile do they think soldiers are?

This is kind of funny because there was a lot of hue and cry over the 'revealing' TSA scanners but showering with someone you know is attracted to your gender should not be an issue.

Okaaaaaaaaay.

Personally I could care less. I'm pretty comfortable with my glorious naked body that unless Francis actually makes a move on me I don't care if he's checking me out or not. Then again I can appreciate that many folks don't have the same insensitivity that I do ;-)

It is peculiarly unimaginative to think you have gone through your whole life without being checked out by some person who would not be a desirable sex partner for you.

I think you miss the point. Naturally this would be applicable when DADT was in effect but now that it isn't and being 'open' (what ever that means) kind of changes the scenery. Before Maurice was one of the guys, now you know he very may well be hot for one the guys.

An old girlfriend I had refused to go to the gym I worked out at because she said she felt uncomfortable there since it was predominately men and felt they were always oogling her. I don't see a difference with her concerns but then again, its always different for the ladies ;-)

1) My sister-in-law played college hoops. She was hit on so often by the lesbian players, she stopped showering and dressing in the locker rooms after practice or games. ('It's insane to let that bother you.')

2) Don't complain about crossdressers using the women's bathroom. That will come soon enough, too. ('It's insane to let that bother you.')

Tell me, Professor, would you feel uncomfortable to have to take all of your showers with the Badgers mens basketball team? After all, and I'll somewhat quote Wilber: How fragile do they think professors are?

Exactly. If there are problems with the different sexes interacting (think of the accusations of rape, the distraction, etc.) think of what will happen when it's now known that the person next to you in the shower is an open homosexual.

When it wasn't open, it could still happen, but it wasn't a distraction. Now, it's as if the guy next to you told you that he's a girl and he finds you attractive.

Will this be the case in all situations? Probably not. But in those certain circumstances...

Can you imagine how stultifyingly boring and intellectually poverty-stricken one must be to regard human sexuality as so demarcated, binary and rigid that it would actually be possible to segregate people based on possible desire? Can you imagine the kind of person that believes that it's possible to crisply demarcate thought, motive and desire like that?

I've slept with enough straight men that I find such thinking laughable, at best and terrifying, at worst. Terrifying since it's the most abnormal, repressed and paranoid people who generally believe that their particular brand of fear is, or should be, universalized.

If you're so worried that someone of your sex might have an off-color thought when glancing at your ass in the shower, then don't join organizations where you're forced shower in groups. Our military would be much better off without such whinging pussies.

"Please explain why we have different showering facilities for women."

Because women and men are different sexes! Not only are you dead-enders abnormal, you're stupid as well.

So what? It's insane to let that bother you. If they don't say anything or do anything or act out in any way, it's nothing to us. If your ability to go about doing what you need to do is undermined by worrying about other people's sexual thoughts, then you are abnormal.

The good professor, it seems, is calling for the immediate eradication of all gender-based segregation of living spaces in all dorms, barracks, and other communal areas including showers.

If the only difference is skin deep, ie external plumping versus internal, Althouse, I believe you loose the argument. Please explain, given your reasoning, why women and men should be forced to lived, shower, and shit separately. Then, assuming you manage to do so, and again given your reasoning, explain why we should continue to split up the sexes in barracks and dorms when it would be far cheaper to house everyone within the same walls. Having two of everything costs money.

I've slept with enough straight men that I find such thinking laughable, at best and terrifying, at worst.

If you slept with them Palladian, then they weren't straight. Bisexual most likely but not straight.

Because women and men are different sexes!

So what? Maybe someone can explain how the social construct came about requiring that men and women should have seperate bathing facilities.

Just for the record, I could care less about DADT, repeal or otherwise. Honestly, I simply don't see tens of thousands of gay men and women flocking to the US military to begin with so I really I think the whole thing is much ado about nuttin.

I absolutely love the delicious irony of so-called conservatives who seem to be advocating for special rights and special facilities for the new identity-politics victim class: the pussified straight man. Think of how society tramples the rights of the pussified straight man, who has to live in fear of the wandering eyes of men with dark motives, terrifying men who might have to suppress a chuckle when regarding the fear-shrunken penises of this newly-oppressed minority!

...special rights and special facilities for the new identity-politics victim class: the fearful woman. Think of how society tramples the rights of the woman, who has to live in fear of the wandering eyes of men with dark motives, terrifying men who might have to suppress a chuckle when regarding the breasts of this oppressed minority!

Imagine the shame of living a life where you can't understand the physiological differences between men and women, and can't imagine why such differences constitute an entirely different issue than intra-sex sexual-preference. This is the daily struggle of the pussified straight man!

If anyone can explain to me why women have separate bathrooms from men, and why that isn't insane to let the idea of sharing toilets or showers bother them, it would clear this issue up for me quite a bit.

Imagine the shame of living a life where you can't understand the physiological differences between men and women, and can't imagine why such differences constitute an entirely different issue than intra-sex sexual-preference.

Hey! Wait a minute! What about the fact that we force pussified straight prisoners to shower with known homosexuals (and also with men who, shall we say, broadened their sexuality in the big house)? Are you concerned about the rights of those pussified straight men?

"I've even -- gasp -- seen guys with erections!!! at the Gym. And you know what? The world did not stop."

I go to the gym quite often and never have I seen a guy walking around with an erection. Much less multiple guys. Something tells me you are hanging around in the wrong gyms, my man. Or perhaps the right ones - not that there's anything wrong with that in the civilian world as I can choose to shower at another gym. Military folks don't have that option.

As Allen pointed out so well, Ann, you can't equate the fact that many of your male readers (and a few of the gals no doubt) are thinking how lucky Meade is to have you - literally - and wishing they were him - with you being forced to shower with some of those same readers. It's not even close.

My wife, a former Air Force member like myself, lived in a dorm during her first three years and for some of that time she had a lesbian roommate (who was not shy about it). It was extremely uncomfortable for her, yet she had no choice. She said she felt like she was rooming with a man the whole time and while gay rights folks no doubt scoff at that "phobia", it's fricken human nature and no amount of social engineering is going to ever change it.

Imagine the shame of living a life where you can't understand the physiological differences between men and women,

I can understand the physiological differences just fine. But as Scott said, why should they matter in this discussion? Again, what physilogical differences warrant seperate facilities? My wife used the same crapper and shower I do.

Consider GK Chesterton on reformers:" The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to [a fence] and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back"

You're a highly intelligent man, but thus far you (like Ann) cannot offer a reason that acknowledges the concerns of the other side, except ridicule.

I'm not convinced that this is a clear argument against repeal of DADT- it's a complicted issue, with a lot of gray areas.

But to pretend that it is not even a legitimate concern, and that it's outrageous that it should even be considered as such, as the professor (and Pallidian) does, is patently absurd. You guys are smarter than this.

"But to pretend that it is not even a legitimate concern, and that it's outrageous that it should even be considered as such, as the professor (and Pallidian) does, is patently absurd. You guys are smarter than this."

There's already a remedy. If the idea of possibly showering near a bisexual or homosexual fellow soldier bothers you, then don't join the military. It's not mandatory.

...the Professor, maybe. I'm not using it as a last-ditch effort to thwart DADT. I've been around this site for a couple of years and this particular issue has always...ALWAYS...been my concern. I am NOT against gays serving openly and have said so on many occasions. I simply call for any implementation to be done without negative impact on our troops. If it can be done, great. Sashay your way into combat, for all I care.

I don't think it can be solved this easily, though, and much like most "progressive" plans, has fuck all consideration for unintended consequences. It's the I-WANT-I-WANT mentality that gives not a shit for the real outcome and modern American history is strewn with examples of their selfishness.

I've never been in the military, or in any circumstance where group showers were the norm. I'm pretty comfortable with my body- I don't get precious about being seen in a bathing suit, and I'm a former theater junkie, where costume changes are often done in non-secluded areas.

That said, I absolutely refuse to have a male gynocologist. Not sure why, the idea just creeps me out. Even having a male doctor who sees me partially uncovered but in a less intimate way than a gyn bugs me. (Would I have a gay male gyn? I'm not sure; it's never come up.) I guess it's possible that my female gyn is a lesbian; I mean, how could I know? Now that I think about it, she's not the most feminine gal I've ever met. But, if she happened to be, please, nobody tell me. I most certainly don't want to know.

Now, of course, showering together is not the same as getting examined. But it's not the same as doing a quick costume change, either; it's somewhere in between. But the point is, I get the issue, and I can see why it would be uncomfortable. And I'd be wrong to pretend that there's no reason for it to be.

Yeah, of course. But so what? People need to get over it, or consider another career if such a minuscule issue troubles them that much. Given the percentage of the general population that identifies as gay or bisexual, demographically it's not actually going to involve many people.

The reason I'm lead to derision and mockery is that the same sorts of people (the so-called conservatives) who I have heard all my life tell people to "get over it" and "stop whining" are suddenly at full wail over this silly little issue.

And for me the core of the issue is the apparent lack of faith that so many of you seem to have in the adaptability and professionalism of our troops. There are so many huge problems facing us as a nation, and facing our armed forces, that it seems impossibly silly to think that this piddly little thing will break up.

"Yeah, of course. But so what? People need to get over it, or consider another career if such a minuscule issue troubles them that much."

First, it's not just something people can get over. It's human nature. That is what gay rights folks just don't understand or, really, just don't want to accept. It's simply not minuscule.

And your suggestion that straights not enter the military if this bothers them is a perfect example of how liberals value social engineering over reality. In other words, screw how this might affect the military as a whole as long as a gays get their way.

And anyway, I am a big, hairy, ass-staring horny dog of a man (actually there really aren't many other kinds of men) and I have never found my group showering experiences the least bit sexy. I ogle men's bodies from head to foot all the time and yet I find that certain situations (such as communal showers and public restrooms) completely deactivate my normal hyper-sexualized nature. From talking to a lot of (bi and gay male) friends this seems to be a very common reaction. Maybe it's a special ability us non-straights have, who knows?

"And for me the core of the issue is the apparent lack of faith that so many of you seem to have in the adaptability and professionalism of our troops.z"

Oh, I have no doubt the vast majority of troops will try their very best to adapt and act professionally. That's not the point. The point is this is introducing still another stress-factor into the military, which they simply do not need. Time that should be spent on training for war will instead be spent on social engineering. Men and women who should be dealing with war-fighting issues will instead be dealing with sexuality issues. Unit cohesiveness will be impacted. And as a result our military will be less effective.

This debate is not about gay rights, no matter how much you want it to be. It's about having a military focused on fighting wars instead of on social engineering.

@MadisonMan - what kind of gym do you work out at? A lifelong athlete, I can say I have NEVER seen anyone in a men's locker room with an erection. Its counter-intuitive, and would be embarrassing too. Sheesh. Only thing I can do with your 'observation' is suggest that maybe whoever it was you saw was 'self-identifying'.

Bottom line is, what is wrong with a little bit 'o judgment? This discussion is beginning to sound similar to stories of people fooling around in bathroom stalls that have special 'holes' in them. It ain't the same thing, people! If Ann wants to pose as someone from the 'thought police' get out of the way.

Well not exactly. If a man makes a nuisance of himself, you can call security, and if he really is persistent, you can go to court and get a restraining order. In other words, the law is on your side, however things may usually work out in the real world.

Repealing DADT is different. The idea here is that it is a matter of civil rights, and the law is on the side of the agressor. If you resist and raise a ruckus, or call security, or whatever, you are creating a "hostile work environment," and they will come down on you for complaining, rather than on the guy who caused the problem in the first place by making unwanted advances.

If you resist and raise a ruckus, or call security, or whatever, you are creating a "hostile work environment," and they will come down on you for complaining, rather than on the guy who caused the problem in the first place by making unwanted advances.

That's backwards. The hostile work environment should lay at the feet of the person who's making the advances, not complaining about them. A person should be able to do their job without being hit on. If there are people hitting on you, that suggests a break-down in discipline to me.

People tend to react strongly when other people are making arguments about legally excluding people like me from something that we're forced to pay for. I don't consider such existential things in the realm of "disagreement". That's like saying that the Klan disagreed with black people.

____

I'm actually never particularly interested in debate-club commenting.

There are lots of reasons for comments, and many styles of comment writing. Not every comment is an argument for a position.

I don't usually read or comment on this blog for the purpose of debating positions, and I don't really think Althouse writes the blog for that reason either. I try to find entertaining (for me) and interesting ways of engaging with the subject matter and with other people's comments.

If you don't like or aren't interested in my comments, don't read them.

If there are people hitting on you, that suggests a break-down in discipline to me.

ANY problem that gets externalized into interpersonal action is a break down in discipline. While I was in the service (90's...smackdab in the middle of the DADT genesis) I never experienced any problems myself. My female cohorts, though, had complaints that were legion regarding their treatment by higher-ranking bulldykes. I came to understand that this wasn't uncommon at all. The women were encouraged to "just deal with it", and "it can't be as bad as you say", etc, etc.

I asked my father about gays in the military after DADT went into effect

Well, now...that doesn't make me feel old. I was an E3 when it went into effect. I still think of the 90's as simply not that long ago. Turns out...it was 10+ years ago. Fuck. That's not going to help my mid-life crisis one bit.

I'm the member of a gymn in Manhattan. Manhattan being Manhattan, I presume that I take showers with gay men. To date, I have not felt myself subject to any leering glances. The admirable self control of the gay men is in welcome contrast to the women members. When I go into their locker room to towel off, you should see the histrionics. The screams, the waving of the pepper spray bottles are totally uncalled for. And yet these same women, Manhattan being Manhattan, are probably all in favor of the end of DADT.

The gays in this hillbilly unit are clearly destructive to Althouse unit cohesion. How can we possibly be combat ready to face the enemy hordes of the Compassionate Bias. The cause of Cruel Neutrality must be bigger than our petty differences about public erections. Think of the cause soldiers. Think of your mission.

"I ogle men's bodies from head to foot all the time and yet I find that certain situations (such as communal showers and public restrooms) completely deactivate my normal hyper-sexualized nature. From talking to a lot of (bi and gay male) friends this seems to be a very common reaction. Maybe it's a special ability us non-straights have, who knows?"

So now we're left with two possibilities: either (1) men and woman should shower together because we expect the communal circumstances to negate sexual interest, or (2) homosexuals are different than heterosexuals in ways other than sexual orientation.

I'm unsurprised Palladian supports the latter as his ability to assert mutually contradictory principles is well established. But you'd think more intellectually honest gay activists would recognize this undermines their asserted theory that homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals in every area other than the target of their interest.

We separate men and women in showers not because they are physically different, but because nudity heightens sexual interest and tension. Hetero sexual interest is deemed to interfere with professional relations to such a degree that virtually every institution in this country has specific rules regarding the matter. I certainly cannot imagine a circumstance where you might be required to expose yourself in mixed company in any job where nudity wasn't the job function. Yet we're supposed to believe that despite hetero nudity being this big a deal homo nudity is a nothing?

What becomes clear is that gay activists believe that all asserted differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals are wrong and based on bigotry, unless the difference is positive. In these cases the differences are simply factual.

This is what happens when your policy preferences are based on group affinity rather than principle.

With a military that can drop half a million on a single cruise missile, I think we can do better at installing partitions to make our showers and bathroooms more private.

In situations where conditions are such that privacy cannot be afforded, paranoia concerning more pressing matters will likely predominate.

Interesting that this post has been ignored. Why can't there be some partitions for those who don't want to be *seen*? My guess is that most guys don't care. They already know or suspect who is gay and they are already showering with them.

My view of this *issue* is that there are homophobes that are VERY attached to their bigotry and this is their chance to expose themseves :-)

"If anyone can explain to me why women have separate bathrooms from men, and why that isn't insane to let the idea of sharing toilets or showers bother them, it would clear this issue up for me quite a bit."

The short answer is "urinals." They can't use 'em, and therefore need more commodes.

The long answer is that most Western societies have a cultural nudity taboo between the sexes. Any social situations that violate this taboo (nude beaches, etc.) are notable because they are exceptional.

And even within the same gender, there are unspoken rules. You don't talk to another guy when he's using the urinal. After you're both done and your washing your hands (You DO wash your hands, don't you?) then it's okay to talk, until then, you ignore him.

"My view of this *issue* is that there are homophobes that are VERY attached to their bigotry and this is their chance to expose themseves :-)

12/29/10 9:40 AM"

My view of this issue is that the self-righteous love to characterize those who disagree with them as homophobes and do so even when they have to pretend the massive internal contradictions in their own beliefs don't exist.

But by way of personal experience in a shared gym shower, however, what should you do if there is another male who stares at you but acts out autoerotically only when you are there no other people present?

Do you report it? How does that accusation make you sound in a politically correct culture?

The key question left unanswered in the debate is whether reporting misconduct of this sort will be easier or more difficult after repeal of DADT.

I'm thinking more difficult in these he-said-he-said circumstances, because "homophobia" will be the counter-charge in making a report.

I think this whole issue is just due to unfamiliarity with differences of sexuality. Just as with skin color if our experience is just with people who we think are just like us the differences become paramount. Once those obvious differences become less important we can judge on other criteria such as character and like, or dislike others accordingly.

I predict there will be fewer rather than more gay folks in the military. Things will go fine except for some misfits of either proclivity doing something to upset the good order and discipline of the unit. However, such people usually find one way or another to undermine the unit regardless of what a particular rule may be.

Another question: The next military budget is going to be cut. Shall these reduced resources go towards weapons, training and equipment or for retrofitting living quarters for lifestyle arrangements?

I’ll add this point to ponder. When DADT was repealed, it was of course fodder for the talk radio set. Several callers said they have sons, daughters, nephews, what-ever that may not enlist because of gays now simply being allowed to serve openly in the military. It conflicted with their “Moral Convictions”. God it was idiotic and infuriating! So these people have no fear of getting shot at, wounded, or killed by “terrorists”, but fear having to take a shower with someone infected by “The Gay”? The concept of “Moral Convictions” has somehow been morphed into acquiescing to ones fears. I mean, seriousness, can these would be soldiers who have such high “moral convictions” even go to war? Maybe they shouldn’t enlist. Maybe we’ll have a stronger military force without them.

I am a gay man. I’ve known all my life. I came to terms with being gay, shed much of the negativity imprinted by society while I lived in San Diego in the late 80′s and early 90′s. Of course, being in San Diego means I inevitably date a lot of military men. I can tell you there are more – many more – gay service men and women than show up in the surveys. Hell, there’s a gay bar right across from one of the bases which was frequented by military personnel. There are many homosexuals currently in the military, many of whom are known to be gay by their fellow patriots. It’s not an issue. Why? Because, they aren’t gay soldiers – it’s because they are soldiers first, who happen to be gay. They are good people, who do their job as well as anyone. There are many homosexuals who have served long careers without doing anything stupid to openly reveal their sexuality and getting kicked out. My cousin is one, and I know of several more.

As far as life on the ground – in the trenches – the repeal of DADT changes nothing about that reality. The basic rules about sex within the ranks are still in place. Those, either heterosexuals or homosexuals who are serving, who can’t control their urges, who can’t keep it in their pants, are caught having sex, will still be subject to disciplinary action… Yes heteros get popped and discharged for flagrant violations of sexual misconduct too.

Do you really think that soldiers don’t know, or suspect, that some of their fellow troops are gay? Of course they do! Take a survey of all those who have been kicked out of the military under DADT. Since he’s making news, lets look at Dan Choi. He served for five years and didn’t get discharged until he went public to protest DADT. Do you think that many of the troops he served with, showered with, and bunked with didn’t know he was gay? Of course they knew! They didn’t care! He was a good soldier!

Of course they did! But they didn’t care, because he was a good soldier.

My friend Capt. Rich Merritt served as a Marine from 1986 to 1998. Do you think that he served for twelve years and not one of those under his command knew he was gay? Of course some did (he just reminded me via Facebook it was 25%). But he didn’t get called on it because he was a good soldier. He also left because he couldn’t stand having to live a double life, pretending to be straight.

Look – the military is about discipline. That include the discipline to control your urges. Just because you are gay does not mean that you somehow can’t do that. Discipline also include more than just sexual behaviors. It also checks you from acting out on prejudices you may have against different races or religions, and now sexual orientation. The repeal of DADT takes away the loophole of not applying that discipline when it comes to gay servicemen.

Look – the military is about discipline. That include the discipline to control your urges. Just because you are gay does not mean that you somehow can’t do that. Discipline also include more than just sexual behaviors. It also checks you from acting out on prejudices you may have against different races or religions, and now sexual orientation. The repeal of DADT takes away the loophole of not applying that discipline when it comes to gay servicemen.

Well said.

So...co-ed showers now too? Cheaper all the way around, really, and a selling point for a vast majority of the members of the military.

"As far as life on the ground – in the trenches – the repeal of DADT changes nothing about that reality. The basic rules about sex within the ranks are still in place. Those, either heterosexuals or homosexuals who are serving, who can’t control their urges, who can’t keep it in their pants, are caught having sex, will still be subject to disciplinary action… Yes heteros get popped and discharged for flagrant violations of sexual misconduct too."

So the rules you mention are sufficient to prevent problems arising from homo sexual interest but not hetero sexual interest, otherwise you would adviocate men and women sharing showers. What is it about gays that gives them this special power?

Let's look at this from another angle and without an act of Congress. As things currently stand, and have stood for quite some time...why don't straight female service members want to share living quarters (showers, bunks, barracks, etc) with straight male service members?

You're all missing the point. This isn't about making things better for gays at all. It's about destroying the military (and the country) so the "progressives" can take over. And when that happens, just like in the former USSR, gays and anyone else who counted on the left to support them and make society better for them will find themselves the first up against the wall.

As a second and third tier athlete, both in school and long thereafter, I have taken many showers over the years where there were numerous naked men. Surely therefore, I have showered with gay men hundreds (probably thousands) of times. It has rarely occurred to me that another of the men might be lusting after me. On the two or three occasions where the lust was obvious from a physical change in a guy, or a significant look, I just ignored it. And that was that.

Your results may vary. However, we all have experienced unwanted sexual interest in one form or another. Learning how to deal with that is part of life.

Apparently the most effective way to defeat the US military is to deploy a bunch of flamboyantly gay men to sashay across the border and wink at them.

I suspect that this almost frenzied response among men is the result of internalizing years of increasingly shrill sexual harassment propaganda. After being on the defensive for so long, some straight men now feel entitled, maybe even expected, to apply those same subjective-yet-draconian standards to their own interactions with unwanted male admirers. What once was dismissed with a shrug is now an intolerable offense to be obsessed over.

I’ll add this point to ponder. When DADT was repealed, it was of course fodder for the talk radio set. Several callers said they have sons, daughters, nephews, what-ever that may not enlist because of gays now simply being allowed to serve openly in the military. It conflicted with their “Moral Convictions”. God it was idiotic and infuriating! So these people have no fear of getting shot at, wounded, or killed by “terrorists”, but fear having to take a shower with someone infected by “The Gay”? The concept of “Moral Convictions” has somehow been morphed into acquiescing to ones fears. I mean, seriousness, can these would be soldiers who have such high “moral convictions” even go to war? Maybe they shouldn’t enlist. Maybe we’ll have a stronger military force without them.

This is an opportunity to apply a rule that I've found very helpful: whenever you find yourself completely dismissing an opponent's position as irrational or thoughtless, stop and check your premises.

While it may be convenient or pleasing to suppose that those who disagree with oneself are simply morons, it's extremely unlikely; as it is also unlikely that they are moral vacuums. Vastly more likely is that they are real people, possessed--in the aggregate--of essentially the same quantity of brains and moral fiber as yourself.

So...how does it happen that reasonable, and generally moral people can arrive at seemingly idiotic positions?

At this point, one begins to do real work: trying to figure out someone's position, without the convenient out of dismissing them as "stupid" or "evil" or "bigots."

FYI, Sonic, I am not criticizing you in any way; just saying, if you try--at least as a hypothetical--ruling out that those other people are stupid or hateful, you might actually arrive at some insight about what they are concerned about. They can still be wrong, either on facts or on cause-and-effect, or else they are "wrong" because they are applying a different hierarchy of values from yours.

Allen S. makes some great points. Problem is this issue, like Women in combat, is being forced on the Military by a bunch of upper-middle class liberals. To them the issue is symbolic. They - and their kids - wouldn't be caught dead in uniform. So its all about striking poses and feeling good about themselves.

That other people - not of their class - have to suffer is irrelevant.

Face reality. The gay person showering next to you at the gym is thinking about whther they will get to work on time after their workout, or if ther is still time on their parking meter, etc.

Awesome. This solves everything. When do we tear down the women's barracks and co-mingle everyone? It's simply cheaper to house everyone in one big building with large communal showers. It's likewise cheaper not to have to segregate male and female sections of a surface ship's living quarters...not to mention subs.

Also, realize that no opponent of repealing DADT ever imagined that there might be gay people taking showers near them in the gym or in military barracks! They are so stupid! They never dreamed of such a thing, so of course they now need enlightened people to explain things to them that would--to anyone but such Neanderthals--be stunningly obvious.

We separate men and women in showers not because they are physically different, but because nudity heightens sexual interest and tension.

Having spent quite some time as a nudist (my parents were nudists and we belonged to several camps/nudist resorts in the 50's 60's and 70's and I don't think I need to recap the Hippie summer of love philosophy) I beg to differ.

Being around nude people of all sizes, shapes, ages and mixed genders, you tend to just view the other nude people without sexual tension. Nude bodies in general and in a group are really not all that attractive. Believe me.

In fact, any overt public sexuality in the nudist colony was frowned upon and would even be cause for expulsion.

What people did in the privacy of their own quarters or apartments was not any consideration of the 'organization. I'm quite sure there was sexual tension and attraction. In fact, I'm positive there was ;-) However, the organizations that we went to were family oriented and health oriented in general, so it may have been different in other circumstances.

DADT is in some ways a reflection of respectable nudist colony behaviour. So even if there is 'lust' in the heart or in the eyes of the beholder, there is no action.

Bryan C says "After being on the defensive for so long, some straight men now feel entitled, maybe even expected, to apply those same subjective-yet-draconian standards to their own interactions with unwanted male admirers."

There is something to your idea that men are constantly pushed in both directions, to accept others' restrictions on them while knowing any reciprocating expectation will be dismissed, usually with the insinuation that it is sexist. But this circumstance is even worse than expecting the same treatment.

For this to be accurate wouldn't the standards need to actually be the same? I don't think sexual harassment law or policy is limited to circumstances where women are nude. Yet a much less extreme policy covering men is ridiculed out of hand.

There is a clear double standard that as yet no one has dealt with other than to say 'deal with it'. But this is not an argument. It's an admission you don't have any way to rebut the obviously inconsistent policies. And the expectation that double standardsare fine as long as they benefit the correct special interest groups should be offensive to all Americans.

"Cameras and security guards.Solved.Now they can toilet and shower together."

Yeah. Right. Where's the budget for that? And how will they operate these with our manning levels? And how will they emplace them for every place we go? Do you understand the incredible size and scope of all the buildings that are used?

DBQ says "In fact, any overt public sexuality in the nudist colony was frowned upon and would even be cause for expulsion."

You can't compare a self selected fringe group to people forced to accept this against their will as a job condition. The vast majority of Americans have never been to a nudist colony specifically because of the nudity. You're taking the social standards of a small group and applying them to people who specifically reject that groups very purpose. Why would you think their social standards would cross over when the acceptance of nudity doesn't?

So you may beg to differ, but I don't see what your disagreement based on, nor did you define an alternative. If society accepts the standards you note, why don't we already have coed showering?

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.-Donald Rumsfeld...

So the rules you mention are sufficient to prevent problems arising from homo sexual interest but not hetero sexual interest, otherwise you would adviocate men and women sharing showers. What is it about gays that gives them this special power?

I'm gay. Have been all my life. I was a high school and college athlete, and after those years, went to the gym fairly regularly until I was in my early 40's, and showered next to gobs and gobs of steaming young hot men. Marshal, for all you know, you may have been standing right next to me (oh, creppy).

Though some of you were pretty good looking, and pretty well hung, I never got aroused. I never popped wood.

Why? Uhm, discipline apparently?

Because, as far as I knew, you were all straight and not on the menu!

- Sarcasm Off -

We didn't have "special powers". We just knew how to control ourselves, something that, judging from so many of the comments here, you real upstanding moral men of society don't quite understand.

- Oops, more sarcasm. Off please -

It's funny. In high school, a friend, Curt, had the misfortune of popping a boner in the showers after gym class when he was a freshman. That because justification for the rumor to persist that he was gay all through high school. He's not gay, and unfortunately just a victim of hormones run amok at the worst possible moment.

Me? I only had a problem with control in algebra class... And I HATE algebra!!!!!

No, we don't have any special powers.... Though, thinking about it, it would be kind of cool if we did! Odds are, you've showered next to many gay men... and you didn't even know it! Why? Like most people I know and consider friends, we simply have respect for other people, and respect your rights not to be bothered or hit upon.

Sonic, I am not criticizing you in any way; just saying, if you try--at least as a hypothetical--ruling out that those other people are stupid or hateful, you might actually arrive at some insight about what they are concerned about.

Where did I call anyone stupid or hateful??? I did not, and will call anyone stupid or hateful over this disagreement. What I implied was that their use of "morals" on this was disingenuous and irrational.

We just knew how to control ourselves, something that, judging from so many of the comments here, you real upstanding moral men of society don't quite understand.

Yes, the link between self-control and gay men is well documented. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the original debate. The incidents of rape, even if restricted to hetero encounters, is minuscule when compared to the actual population. Thus, it's "insane", as originally put, to assume that women should have any problem with co-habitation with members of the other gender.

This is what, frankly, nobody here has been able to address sufficiently. Sexual arousal has nothing to do with it and is a straw man at best.

What you're asking straight men to do you would never have considered asking straight women to do. I defy someone to prove otherwise.

Considering, but your arguments don't reach your conclusion. Straights can have discipline too, right? But the military still doesn't have straight men and women shower together. In order to explain the discrepancy this magic power gays have must be unique to them.

But your silly and misdirected focus on the emotional shows you shouldn't be taken seriously. You want what's good for you and will rationalize whatever you need to justify it.

LOL. Here comes, for the 8394th time, the old "but why don't we have co-ed showers then, huh??" silliness. It's mixing apples and oranges. Or fruits and nuts. Or fruits with nuts who love nuts. Or something.

When did sexual orientation become some new gender? Gay men and women are, you know, men and women.

FWIW, the proponents of this don't do their cause a whole lot of good by taking the usual Lefty, "I'm smarter and more sophisticated than you.", arguments.

The interesting thing is I have yet to hear one of them, Palladian particularly, tell us how this will make a better armed force. All they want to talk about is how antediluvian anyone who disagrees with them is. Andrea may have been waxing sarcastic (among other things), but it's fairly clear several of the anti-DADT types here, Palladian also among them, would love to see the military cut by about 50% and the money used for "social justice".

It's bizarre that Palladian keeps saying sexual orientation and gender are different as if that means something. Why would we separate genders if no sexual component were involved? Do we have different showers for blonds and brunettes?

Duh! Exept when it comes do dealing with the fact that there are gays all around you! (boy, that sounds like a good conspiracy)

But the military still doesn't have straight men and women shower together. In order to explain the discrepancy this magic power gays have must be unique to them.

What is your fear over being in a shower with a gay guy? If he gropes you, report him. How hard can that be... Oh, maybe I shouldn't use that term....

But your silly and misdirected focus on the emotional shows you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Emotional? Really??? That's what you call "emotional"???? Probably ought to look up that term again, because, if you think I was being "emotional", I don't think it means what you think it means. What I wrote is something called "Reality".

You want what's good for you and will rationalize whatever you need to justify it.

Don't we all?

I'm not in the military so this doesn't benefit me. You're not in the military (would have mentioned it by now) so keeping DADT would not benefit you either. So I guess it's a stalemate...

Uh Oh... maybe I shouldn't use the term "mate" either! You might think I'm coming on to you...

- Dammit Sarcasm... Would you just leave me alone.. Get out of my shower!!!

The private health club analogy nicely encapsulates what is so absurdly wrong with the DADT repealers: they think that life in the military is like private civilian life at the club. They have not the foggiest notion of what life in the barracks or the trenches is like. Military service is not a job; it's a life, in which you live under a completely different regime, including a different set of laws.

Wake the hell up, and the let the military keep its honor and do its job.

The Marine Corps does not belong to the Marines. It belongs to the people. We occupy positions in it at the request of the United States. So if Americans say we can have homosexuals among us then we will. If they say men can wear women's uniforms, then they will. If they allow transexuals, then they will.

But the question starts to be asked, just what are we defending anymore? We have complete sexual freedom to the point of perversity at the same time we have almost unfettered federal power and almost nonexistent economic freedom.

What is your fear over being in a shower with a gay guy? If he gropes you, report him. How hard can that be... Oh, maybe I shouldn't use that term....

What is the female soldiers fear over being in a shower with a male soldier? If he gropes her, report him. How hard can that be?

Please address how the two are different. I'm quite certain that the overwhelming majority of the women I "lived" with (at least under the same roof if not the same bay) in the barracks did NOT want men showering/shitting/sleeping around them. Explain why this is different?

I mean, other than the fact that there's almost always obvious pointers giving away a man as a man and a woman as a woman...

Althouse wrote:It's utterly routine to encounter people who are thinking about having sex with you. Sometimes these are people you would regard as acceptable sexual partners and sometimes they're not. So what?

So why can't the men shower with the women? Communal showers, what's the big deal? Why have separate barracks for women and men?

The other point is: No matter how irrational the elites find the disapproval of service members regarding homosexuals, if enough service members vote with their feet over this issue, the elites will have seriously jeopardized our national security during wartime in order to appease a tiny minority of deviants. The elites seem to have forgotten that we have an all-volunteer force that will be significantly weakened--by both decreased retention and decreased enlistment--on account of this misguided policy.

Palladian wrote:Yeah, of course. But so what? People need to get over it, or consider another career if such a minuscule issue troubles them that much.

And by the same token, perhaps gays should rethink their military careers, if the only way they can serve is by telling everyone they take it up the ass. How does them being openly gay help in their role in the military, and why can't they simply shut up about them liking cock?

You're never going to understand my position until you stop insisting I must believe as I do for the reasons you believe as you do. I don't "fear" showering with gays. I object to culture war efforts to marginalize half of America. I object to double standards enacted to benefit special interest groups. I think the military has such an important mission these actions should not be taken over the objections of the warfighters effected. And I object to the offensive way those engaged in the culture war push their agenda with lies and refuse to address the issue.

Aside - that I "fear" showering with gays is idiotic beyond belief. Why aren't you embarassed to make such a middle school assertion about a public policy issue? Have you so internalized BAMN you're simply willing to say anything? But the truly pathetic fact is the person making such asinine allegations thinks he's the reasonable one in the discussion. Unbelievable.

What is your fear over being in a shower with a gay guy? If he gropes you, report him. How hard can that be.

As I said above, it will be harder...er...more difficult after repeal of DADT, especially in "he-said-he-said" circumstances, where presumably homosexual orientation will now acquire protected minority class status.

edutcher said... "The interesting thing is I have yet to hear one of them, Palladian particularly, tell us how this will make a better armed force"

It gets rid of a discriminatory law which was not applied to heterosexuals (who can't seem to stop rubbing their heterosexuality in people's faces). If DADT was enforced policy for all military personnel, straight or otherwise, I would support it.

Getting rid of DADT no longer mandates the expulsion of otherwise exemplary members of the armed forces who have their personal lives "exposed". It also makes the military a more attractive career option for people who might not have otherwise considered it due to the unjust DADT policy.

edutcher said... "....it's fairly clear several of the anti-DADT types here, Palladian also among them, would love to see the military cut by about 50% and the money used for "social justice"

What's fairly clear is now you're just making shit up about me and my beliefs. I don't support military budget cuts and don't support the euphemistic "progressive" agenda called "social justice". If any other Federal and State budgets are to be cut, I want the money going nowhere other than back in the American people's pockets from where it was stolen.

Skyler said... "You don't need to mention a parade since being homosexual is by definition depraved even without parades. People often seem to forget that nowadays. Homosexuals no longer have any shame at all."

Why should we? After all, you're not ashamed to put up that profile pic of you next to your lovely wife.

chuck b. said... "Do British and Israeli soldiers have sexual problems in their showers?"

Depends on the water temperature. I suspect the only problems they have in their showers are mildew, and perhaps clogged drains once in a while.

Please address how the two are different. I'm quite certain that the overwhelming majority of the women I "lived" with (at least under the same roof if not the same bay) in the barracks did NOT want men showering/shitting/sleeping around them. Explain why this is different?

Because we have ppepee... they have boobies?

Men are men.. women are women... And this line of reasoning is a bit of a red herring. It's changing the scope of the argument away from the actual question at hand, whether or not gays serving in the military, without fear of discharge simply because they are gay, is a detriment to the armed forces.

On my side of the argument, we have examples of other countries where the military functions just fine with gays serving in the military. We have my personal knowledge of current and former servicemen who are gay, many of their fellow servicemen knew they were gay, and there was no problem.

So, the problem isn't whether or not gay soldiers can perform the same duties as straight soldiers, it's how a few straight soldiers get icked out over something that is ALREADY THERE. It about FEAR and your inability to conquer it.

"And by the same token, perhaps gays should rethink their military careers, if the only way they can serve is by telling everyone they take it up the ass.How does them being openly gay help in their role in the military, and why can't they simply shut up about them liking cock?"

Then why don't you and the pussy straight guys quit shoving your fat wives and wedding rings and retarded children in everyone's faces? I don't really want to know that you like to lick the menstrual fluid out of Peggy Lee's cooch or that you get your jollies from popping it full the rancid effluvium that issues from your child-sized dick, but you people can't keep from parading that nasty shit all over the place. Maybe if you were legally mandated to shut up about your private life too we'd get a lot more accomplished.

edutcher said... "....it's fairly clear several of the anti-DADT types here, Palladian also among them, would love to see the military cut by about 50% and the money used for "social justice"

What's fairly clear is now you're just making shit up about me and my beliefs. I don't support military budget cuts and don't support the euphemistic "progressive" agenda called "social justice". If any other Federal and State budgets are to be cut, I want the money going nowhere other than back in the American people's pockets from where it was stolen.

Then say something intelligent instead of KosKid drivel such as, "Then why don't you and the pussy straight guys quit shoving your fat wives and wedding rings and retarded children in everyone's faces?"?

... And this line of reasoning is a bit of a red herring. It's changing the scope of the argument away from the actual question at hand, whether or not gays serving in the military, without fear of discharge simply because they are gay, is a detriment to the armed forces.

It's not a red herring if you've actually served in the armed forces and have actually lived in the barracks, onboard ship, or at a remote. Being in the military, at it's most base level, requires the very sort of day to day existence I'm talking about.

Your international attempt is, in fact, a red herring. Not only aren't we not talking about their armed forces, there are other equally inapt arguments that could be made. There are many countries around the world that have institutionalized polygamy, and yet I never hear SSM advocates call for equality for them. As long as Fred can marry Ted, they don't carry if Tom, Dick and Harry can't get married.

A monumentally large if in this economy. I've read right on this blog that people know people who say they will leave the Armed Forces. Saying and doing are two different things.

Like any workforce change, I expect a collective shrug of the shoulders from most people as they adapt. There might be denial and anger first that the change is coming, or depression and bargaining, or all four in some sequence, but eventually: acceptance.

And by the same token, perhaps gays should rethink their military careers, if the only way they can serve is by telling everyone they take it up the ass.How does them being openly gay help in their role in the military, and why can't they simply shut up about them liking cock?"

Herein lies the crux of the problem - The term "serving openly gay". I you think that these soldiers are now going to go around parading that they're gay... because... well... that's what "openly gay" people do... You're wrong.

The repeal of DADT does not give a gay soldier carte blache to go around the barracks yelling "We're Queer! We're Here! Get used to it" (though, at this point, you really should). No. All it means is that the military will no longer have license to kick you out simply because you're gay. But, if you misbehave in a sexual manner, you get disciplined, just as you would if you were a straight soldier.

"Men are men.. women are women... And this line of reasoning is a bit of a red herring."

It's completely disingenuous to assert that we separate men and women solely because of the physical differences. For virtually the entirety of human history gender difference implied sexual orientation. Now that we're separating the two you want to pretend the link never existed (although when indulging your need to denigrate society at large you admit the link exists - so it's not like you don't know this). This is just another example of refusing to address issues on the merits.

With he-said-he-said type thing, just one event type, I agree you have difficulty. A serial flaunter? groper?...someone who routinely is cruising the showers, well, I don't see why that person wouldn't be tossed out after more than a couple events became known. This is for people of similar rank. If there is a rank disparity, then sexual harrassment -- in the legal sense -- comes into play. I presume that is grounds for being kicked out, regardless of sexual orientation.

I do not share your concern that sexual orientation will become a protected minority class. We'll see who is right, I guess.

"Highlighting your complete refusal to understand our side of the argument yet again?"

What's your "side" of the argument again, sport? You dislike dirty queers and you get a'shiver with the thought that they're possibly going to see you naked in a non-sexual situation.

That's not an argument, it's a prejudice. Which, of course, I support your right, as an American, to hold and express. But those rights don't include your prejudices being codified into law that all of us must live under.

Anyway, thank goodness all this blather is just shuttin' the gate after the cows have escaped. I'm just sorry the Democrats get to take credit for it.

You are never required to like the people with whom you work, but you do have to tolerate them -- if they're not doing illegal things. I find competent people who do their jobs well a joy to work with. A Venn diagram of competent people who do their jobs well has an intersection with both gays and straights.

Lucille Roberts started their gyms based on the premise that women don't want to be ogled bymen while they're working out. Yet clearly they are in the wrong> Those women should simply accept that guys will ogle them and shut up about it. Those women are just a bunch of crybabies. They should similarly consolidate all the separate shower facilities into one and get over their shame of sexuality and scapegoating of men as sexual predators. If that means guys get to look at them while they soap down their naked flesh, so be it.

The repeal of DADT does not give a gay soldier carte blache to go around the barracks yelling "We're Queer! We're Here! Get used to it"

How does it not. I'm not trying to be snarky here. Why would said shouter get in trouble at this point for any other reason than the commander's opinion that he/she was purposefully trying to elicit angry responses from other servicemembers?

Highlighting your complete refusal to understand our side of the argument yet again?

No, I understand your side of the argument just fine. It's just a pretty weak one, and far too similar to the same used to maintain segregation, with separate drinking fountains, restrooms, pools, and all that.

Again, I ask, do you have any idea how many gay men you've taken a shower with? In high school? In college? At the gym??? Or do you think no one who shared the same shower with you was gay?

What's your "side" of the argument again, sport? You dislike dirty queers and you get a'shiver with the thought that they're possibly going to see you naked in a non-sexual situation.

My "side" in the sense of the others on this blog, on this thread, that are arguing similar points to mine. The rest of your argument so predicates your own intolerances that I won't address it more than saying, again, I've got nothing against the repeal, but have serious questions about the implementation. Go back and read any of my comments about this very issue over the past couple years and I'm consistent.

Sorry I'm not the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing conservative dinosaur you think you're dealing with, but I can't expect someone with such prejudices to let go easily.

Palladian wrote:Apparently you have no problem with the government seeing people naked and groping children.

But showering with a possible homo- eeek!

There's a word for people like you: fascist.

Apparently you DO have a problem with the govt seeing people naked, yet you want to give gays the ability to ogle people they like sexually openly, while denying heteros the same right. And the TSA wouldn't in fact see naked people. They'd see a scan that is completely nondescript, and which could not actually reveal specific details about a persons identity. Versus getting a full view of someones genitalia while they soap themselves off, even if they are uncomfortorable by such potential ogling.In the interest of fairness, if gays get to see people they might view sexually naked then straights should too. Plenty of guys have gotten in trouble for drilling holes in the womens bathroom wall so they could check out the womens boobies, all we're asking for is that if gays can get free access so should straights.

In the late 80s I was in the Army in Germany. Male to Female ratio in the company was approximately 4 to 1. As a consequence, on one floor the bathroom was shared (offices were also on this floor).

The urinals were out of bounds, but the stalls were used by both men and women at the same time.

The shower was scheduled in the morning, alternating which gender went first. For all other times, there was a lock on the inside of the shower room door. If the door was locked, one could knock and see if the showerer was of the same gender and be let in or told to wait if not.

"It's just a pretty weak one, and far too similar to the same used to maintain segregation, with separate drinking fountains, restrooms, pools, and all that. "

Actually the relationship between homosexuality and race is much farther apart than that between different orientations. Yet you refuse to discuss the close relationship while referencing the irrelevant.

Why? Activism 101. Never admit admit any fact detrimental to the cause no matter how obvious. Lie, cheat, steal, misdirect: whatever it takes. By Any Means Necessary.

Did you read the shit that I was responding to? I like to respond in kind.

Problem is, you're not going to convince anybody doing that. I know what you mean - too much invective gets into the argument. When possible, I try to rebut objectively. Doesn't always work, but little doubt about my point.

Sonic frog wrote:So, the problem isn't whether or not gay soldiers can perform the same duties as straight soldiers, it's how a few straight soldiers get icked out over something that is ALREADY THERE. It about FEAR and your inability to conquer it.

Your move sport.

And please. No more red herring arguments.

Yet, isn't the lack of coed showers in the military similarly based on FEAR (of the male predator who will simply rape women the first chance he gets and wont be able to control himself when he sees naked boobies)and the inability to overcome it.I'm sure there are plenty of men who can shower with women and not even get boners, yet in the interest of accomodating women into the military men have to be treated like sexual predators. Men and women are in the military now. What's the big deal?

Why would said shouter get in trouble at this point for any other reason than the commander's opinion that he/she was purposefully trying to elicit angry responses from other servicemembers?

Good question.

Answer: The men and women who find their calling to serve our country are a different breed. They are the "shouter" type. They are not the non-conforming activist who want to stir things up and make a statement - you know, like the disgusting publicity hogs such as Perez Hilton - No, they are men and women for whom the call of duty trumps the vain personal trappings of the rest of us. They are not going into the military to make a statement, they, whether straight or gay, are going in to serve their country.

Yes there are gay servicemen, and straight ones as well, who, after leaving the military, took up the cause of ending DADT. My friend decorated Marine Capt. Rich Merritt is one of those former gay soldiers. There is Dan Choi, who served honorably for five years, then decided to go public as a gay soldier in protest of DADT.

And guess what. He got kicked out.

But if DADT were not in place, there would not have been a reason for him to "shout", as you call it, and he would still be in the military working as an Arabic linguist.

Though I was never in the military, I've gotten to know quite a few military personnel (see my blogpost here). The bottom line is this - These aren't "gay soldiers". Just as I am not a "gay man"... I am a business owner, a mechanic, a teacher (if CA will get it's crap together)a musician, a blogger, a son, a brother, an uncle, who just happens to be gay, these soldiers are soldiers, who just happen to be gay.

and sonic frog, wouldn't the issue be not with the men who might ogle women but overly sensitive women, who treat any view of their skin as an instant flag that will encite the rapist in a man? Couldn't you similarly treat each infraction (ie a man ogling a woman sexually) individually instead of assuming that all men cannot view naked women without turning into sexual animals.